But when the "one-offs" start mounting up, there's an increasing likelihood that they are not one-offs.

That doesn't necessarily follow, Harry: a one-off is, by definition, an isolated happening. It is eminently possible that Tabram, Mylett, Coles (etc) fell victim, whether by murder or manslaughter, to different perpetrators. Knife crimes were by no means unprecedented, nor were they peculiar to the East End, and many areas of London had their fair share of "vicious, semi-criminal" streets. The fact that the East End arguably had more "vicious, semi-criminal" people per unit area should make it somewhat less surprising if a spate of independent knife-crimes suddenly arose. This is a factor that still applies today, with a greater prevalence of all sorts of crime in the more deprived, crowded populations of our towns and cities.

When we allow the fact that the Pinchin Street torso had her arms intact to tell us that she was killed by another man, then is objectivity.
When we say that the 1874 torso had a leg attached, then it is subjectivity and insignificant.

Surely you can see that?

And when we allow the fact that the Pinchin Street torso was dumped out in the east to tell us that she was killed by another man, then it´s onjectivity.

When we the note that parts of the Rainham torso were dumped as far from Whitehall as Pinchin Street is distanced therefrom, it´s instead subjectivity and over generalization.

The worst thing about all of this is that it seems that Gareth does not even understand what he is doing.

I'd only observe that there were plenty of people who had some experience of jointing meat in London at the time, and not necessarily in a professional capacity.

And how many of them do you think had killing women and dismembering them as a sideline?

Is this more of your "objectivity"? Hebbert clearly recognizes very large similarities inbetween the torso victims, based on the specific cutting technique, identifying the same sort of cuts made in the same style, neat and unhesitating all of them, he says VERY clearly that he believes the same man is responsible in all four cases - and you are going for the age-old "there are only so many ways one can cut up a body" again? Don´t you think Hebbert knew all about the ways a body can be cut up in, Gareth?

I´ll try my luck with the questions from yesterday again, still unanswered. Here you go, Gareth:

1. Which is the likelier thing to you if a series of dismemberment murders is performed in a smallish geographical area over a period of a year or two - that three was one, two or numerous killers?

2. If a forensic expert medico examined all the victims of this theoretical series of dismemberment murders and said that it is highly likely that the same man killed all of the victims in the series, on account of how the cutting technique and the mutilations are very similar within the series, why would we reason that he is likely to have been wrong, based on differences we know that he was fully aware of but didn´t see as any viable reason to alter his verdict?

That doesn't necessarily follow, Harry: a one-off is, by definition, an isolated happening. It is eminently possible that Tabram, Mylett, Coles (etc) fell victim, whether by murder or manslaughter, to different perpetrators. Knife crimes were by no means unprecedented, nor were they peculiar to the East End, and many areas of London had their fair share of "vicious, semi-criminal" streets. The fact that the East End arguably had more "vicious, semi-criminal" people per unit area should make it somewhat less surprising if a spate of independent knife-crimes suddenly arose. This is a factor that still applies today, with a greater prevalence of all sorts of crime in the more deprived, crowded populations of our towns and cities.

But those are interpreted "one-offs" that you're speaking about. You don't know that they weren't committed by the same perpetrator, just because the MOs were dissimilar. And don't the records show that murder in London, let alone Whitechapel, was staggeringly low before the sudden surge in 1888?

I´ll try my luck with the questions from yesterday again, still unanswered. Here you go, Gareth

Sorry, Fish, but I don't follow all your posts. Life's too short, my nerves and blood pressure are too bad, and I find that your tone sometimes makes it feel like my head's exploding. I wouldn't want people to think that I'm ducking your questions - it's simply that I deliberately don't read every post you make. To answer your questions in this specific instance:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

1. Which is the likelier thing to you if a series of dismemberment murders is performed in a smallish geographical area over a period of a year or two - that three was one, two or numerous killers?

In the smallish geographical area that was South West London, I'd agree that there's a good possibility that the same perpetrator(s) was responsible. However, Pinchin Street was in the smallish geographical area of Whitechapel, quite far removed from Chelsea/Battersea, both in social and geographical terms. On that basis alone, never mind other factors, I'd say that it was more likely that the Pinchin Street case involved a different perpetrator(s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

2. If a forensic expert medico examined all the victims of this theoretical series of dismemberment murders and said that it is highly likely that the same man killed all of the victims in the series, on account of how the cutting technique and the mutilations are very similar within the series, why would we reason that he is likely to have been wrong, based on differences we know that he was fully aware of but didn´t see as any viable reason to alter his verdict?

Firstly, experts are not infallible, and even the best of them - as Hebbert assuredly was - are only offering opinions, and opinions are not facts. Secondly, there are only so many ways in which one can joint a piece of meat.

But those are interpreted "one-offs" that you're speaking about. You don't know that they weren't committed by the same perpetrator, just because the MOs were dissimilar. And don't the records show that murder in London, let alone Whitechapel, was staggeringly low before the sudden surge in 1888?

Albeit there wil be a grey-zone, the numbers were indeed very small.

And that regards murders - affairs that in just about every case has a motive: money, jealousy etcetera. Common enough matters.

Mutilation and evisceration is something radically different. How many dismemberment murders - practical and offensive such ones alike, are there in Britain today in a normal year? With a very much larger population than that of the late 1800:s? Are there even such murders represented each year?

I'd only observe that there were plenty of people who had some experience of jointing meat in London at the time, and not necessarily in a professional capacity.

Sam, I think it is also worth considering that Hebbert lived in those times and would probably be well aware of the skills of the general population. I wonder why he would comment on it as a significant point linking the dismemberment of these four bodies if he knew a great number of people were capable of doing this. He also concluded that the person who dismembered the bodies had knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals.

Hi Debs
Another comment from Dr Biggs relative to this issue on who could have dismembered these torsos and the doctors of the days opinions

"I think it is worth noting that comments relating to ‘anatomical knowledge’ or ‘surgical skill’ should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sorts of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen ‘amateurs making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt. Generalizations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre."

Thanks Trevor
I appreciate what Dr Biggs has to say but I would also remind you of what G N Rutty wrote:

"Anatomical Sites of Dismemberment

From the authors' experience, it is unusual for the body's limbs to be removed through the joints. Pathologists will know from experience that that to remove an arm or leg through the shoulder or hip joints is not easy. If such a case is encountered, then it is reasonable to consider that the perpetrator has a degree of knowledge of anatomy and/or butchery skills.."